DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: “scanning a mark with a charged particle beam in each of conditions” is unclear. Appropriate correction is required.
Suggested correction: “scanning a mark with a charged particle beam in each of a plurality of conditions”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “measurement of the drift amount” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the Examiner has interpreted “measurement of the drift amount” to mean “calculation of the drift amount.”
Claim 3 recites the limitation “measurement with the measurement interval or the measurement frequency which has been changed” in lines 5-7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the Examiner has interpreted “measurement with the measurement interval or the measurement frequency which has been changed” to mean “measurement [[with]]wherein the measurement interval or the measurement frequency [[which]] has been changed during the measurement.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 4-6, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Iizuka (U.S. Patent No. 10,109,458 B2), hereinafter Iizuka.
Regarding claim 1, Iizuka discloses a beam position measurement method comprising:
scanning a mark with a charged particle beam (column 3, lines 20-24) in each of conditions (column 2, lines 45-46; column 5, lines 35-36, deflection voltage conditions), the mark (FIG. 1, element M) being provided on a stage (FIG. 1, element 105) on which a substrate (FIG. 1, element 101) is placed, and measuring a beam irradiation position based on electrons reflected from the mark (column 2, lines 46-48);
scanning the mark in a reference condition (column 6, lines 10-16), measuring a beam irradiation position based on electrons reflected from the mark (column 2, lines 46-48), and calculating a drift amount based on an obtained result of measurement of the beam irradiation position in the reference condition (column 2, lines 53-55); and
correcting the beam irradiation position measured in each of the conditions, using the drift amount (column 2, lines 52-57).
Regarding claim 2, Iizuka as applied to claim 1 discloses the beam position measurement method according to claim 1.
In addition, Iizuka discloses that the conditions are for a beam position or a deflection voltage of the charged particle beam (column 2, lines 45-46; column 5, lines 35-36, deflection voltage).
Regarding claim 4, Iizuka as applied to claim 2 discloses the beam position measurement method according to claim 2.
In addition, Iizuka discloses that the conditions are for the beam position, a multi-charged particle beam is divided by a plurality of regions (column 5, lines 37-43), the mark is scanned with each of the regions (column 5, lines 47-48), and a beam array shape of the multi-charged particle beam is calculated based on the corrected beam irradiation position (column 5, lines 43-46).
Regarding claim 5, Iizuka as applied to claim 4 discloses the beam position measurement method according to claim 4.
In addition, Iizuka discloses that the reference condition is presence of one or a plurality of on-beams located in a center of the multi-charged particle beam (column 6, lines 10-16).
Regarding claim 6, Iizuka as applied to claim 2 discloses the beam position measurement method according to claim 2.
In addition, Iizuka discloses that the conditions are for deflection voltage applied to a deflector (column 5, lines 35-36), and a deflection sensitivity of the charged particle beam is calculated using the corrected beam irradiation position with a plurality of different deflection voltages (column 5, line 59 to column 6, line 9).
Regarding claim 8, Iizuka as applied to claim 4 discloses the beam position measurement method according to claim 4.
In addition, Iizuka discloses a charged particle beam writing method,
wherein an irradiation condition for the multi-charged particle beam is corrected based on a beam array shape calculated by the beam position measurement method (column 6, lines 42-53), and a pattern is written on the substrate (column 5, lines 37-38).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 3 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iizuka as respectively applied to claims 1 and 6 above, in view of Takemoto et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2001/0013581 A1), hereinafter Takemoto.
Regarding claim 3, Iizuka as applied to claim 1 discloses the beam position measurement method according to claim 1.
Iizuka fails to disclose that measurement of the drift amount is performed at a predetermined measurement interval or a predetermined measurement frequency, or performed after exceeding a predetermined measurement time or a predetermined number of times of measurement with the measurement interval or the measurement frequency which has been changed.
However, Takemoto discloses that measurement of the drift amount is performed at a predetermined measurement interval (paragraph 0155).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Iizuka to include that measurement of the drift amount is performed at a predetermined measurement interval, based on the teachings of Takemoto that this enables precise calibration and correction of the system (Takemoto, paragraph 01560.
Regarding claim 7, Iizuka as applied to claim 6 discloses the beam position measurement method according to claim 6.
Iizuka fails to disclose that, in the reference condition, the deflection voltage applied to the deflector is set to zero.
However, Takemoto discloses that, in the reference condition, the deflection voltage applied to the deflector is set to zero (paragraph 0495).
Optimizing a deflection voltage is well within the bounds of normal experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05 II (A). “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to dis-cover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Furthermore, “[a] particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation.” In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). In the case at hand, Takemoto teaches that “a trajectory of the charged-particle beam keeps a linear relation with the voltage applied to a deflector” (paragraph 0478). As such, Takemoto identifies the deflection voltage as a variable which achieves a recognized result, i.e., modifying the trajectory of the charged particle beam. Therefore, the prior art teaches adjusting a deflection voltage and identifies said voltage as a result-effective variable. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to optimize the deflection voltage to meet the claimed voltage since it is not inventive to dis-cover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Matsumoto (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0027986 A1), hereinafter Matsumoto, teaches a beam position measurement method comprising: scanning a mark with a charged particle beam in each of conditions, the mark being provided on a stage on which a substrate is placed, and measuring a beam irradiation position based on electrons reflected from the mark; scanning the mark in a reference condition, measuring a beam irradiation position based on electrons reflected from the mark, and calculating a drift amount based on an obtained result of measurement of the beam irradiation position in the reference condition; and correcting the beam irradiation position measured in each of the conditions, using the drift amount; wherein measurement of the drift amount is performed at a predetermined measurement interval.
Mizoguchi (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0093466 A1), hereinafter Mizoguchi, teaches measurement of a drift amount performed at a predetermined measurement frequency, or performed after exceeding a predetermined measurement time.
Matsui (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0333734 A1), hereinafter Matsui, teaches a beam position measurement method comprising: scanning a mark with a charged particle beam in each of conditions, the mark being provided on a stage on which a substrate is placed, and measuring a beam irradiation position based on electrons reflected from the mark; scanning the mark in a reference condition, measuring a beam irradiation position based on electrons reflected from the mark, and calculating a drift amount based on an obtained result of measurement of the beam irradiation position in the reference condition; and correcting the beam irradiation position measured in each of the conditions, using the drift amount.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALINA R KALISZEWSKI whose telephone number is (703)756-5581. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00am - 5:00pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Robert Kim can be reached at (571)272-2293. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/A.K./Examiner, Art Unit 2881
/DAVID E SMITH/Examiner, Art Unit 2881
Prosecution Insights